- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Antibody study in Netherlands shows that 3% had coronavirus. What it means for us.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 10:44 pm to baldona
Posted on 4/16/20 at 10:44 pm to baldona
quote:If a test correctly identifies 98.4% of the negative cases, then it identifies 1.6% of negative cases as positive (false positive). While that doesn’t seem bad, it gets progressively more problematic as the base rate (i.e., true percentage of infected) gets lower.
Can you explain this like I’m 5?
So if 1% are positive, and therefore 99% are negative, and 1.6% of those negative tests are false positives then 1.6% of 99% is 1.58% (0.016*0.99=0.0158).
In other words, there will be more false positives than total infections. And if it correctly identifies 98.4% is the 1% that are positive then there will an additional 0.984% true positives (0.01*0.984=0.00984) identified, bringing the total positives (true + false) to 2.568% but with a positive predictive value (true positives/total positives) of only 38.3%.
Now there are potentially ways to control for this (at least to some degree), but thus far, the studies from Europe have merely reported the total positive percentage. And I’ve been quite disappointed with this lack of scientific rigor to control for a known issue (false positive paradox; base rate fallacy).
There is basically an entire field of probability and statistics (Bayesian) based on the logic and probability of this fundamental issue, but the scientists in these studies don’t even seem to know and/or care to use it or even acknowledge it.
This post was edited on 4/16/20 at 10:59 pm
1
Posted on 4/17/20 at 12:20 am to WaWaWeeWa
If you extrapolate from the death rate at least 2 -3 million people in USA have had or have Covid-19. It’s contagious as hell. You have almost 1000 confirmed cases at one meat factory in South Dakota. Micheal Osterholm was specifically ask about his model and was he still predicting half of the county would get Covid -19 ang 1-2 million deaths. He doubled down and said over the next 18 months that is simply what is going to happen, because we are going to back off quarantine and it will flare back up and will be worse in the Fall.
It is what it is.....
It is what it is.....
Posted on 4/17/20 at 1:13 am to WaWaWeeWa
Sorry. Of course a lower than expected mortality rate is a good thing. My point was that total exposure is so low. I am maybe being overly optimistic, but hoping some places will have already had higher exposures and therefore closer to normalcy.
The CFR has been projected to be low from the start. The key is hospital capacity during the spikes and negative impact on COVID and non-COVID patients. Once there is "herd" immunity, the spikes behave like season flu, meaning within hospital capacity.
There have been and most likely always will be viral based mortality. This shut down, while it has had an impact on that, was probably more about hospital capacity. IF we are only at ~3% exposure in the US, we will be dependent on a vaccine being available to feel good about not overwhelming our hospitals. Having said that, if the travel bans from China/Europe stay in place, we could probably get closer to normal before a vaccine as the virus that is here will hopefully mostly run it's course.
I am very hopeful that the remdesivir data in the severe patients will be positive (we should know within 72 hours if data base lock did happen today). Besides mortality, it also has to show a decrease in metrics related to ICU bed days and/or total hospital days. This will free up bed days and should show COVID bed capacity improvements in the models, which is what the governments will also use to feel warm and fuzzy about re-opening, except the half-wit in Michigan who is probably as cold as the snow outside in Lansing, regardless of the data.
The CFR has been projected to be low from the start. The key is hospital capacity during the spikes and negative impact on COVID and non-COVID patients. Once there is "herd" immunity, the spikes behave like season flu, meaning within hospital capacity.
There have been and most likely always will be viral based mortality. This shut down, while it has had an impact on that, was probably more about hospital capacity. IF we are only at ~3% exposure in the US, we will be dependent on a vaccine being available to feel good about not overwhelming our hospitals. Having said that, if the travel bans from China/Europe stay in place, we could probably get closer to normal before a vaccine as the virus that is here will hopefully mostly run it's course.
I am very hopeful that the remdesivir data in the severe patients will be positive (we should know within 72 hours if data base lock did happen today). Besides mortality, it also has to show a decrease in metrics related to ICU bed days and/or total hospital days. This will free up bed days and should show COVID bed capacity improvements in the models, which is what the governments will also use to feel warm and fuzzy about re-opening, except the half-wit in Michigan who is probably as cold as the snow outside in Lansing, regardless of the data.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 2:03 am to castorinho
quote:But the infected numbers in question were derived from actual deaths and an estimated IFR of 0.6%. The assumption was equally healthy populations, so equivalent IFR, which produced an estimated number of infections in NO at 40,000.
We were talking about infected numbers.
Not deaths.
If, instead, the assumption is that NO is less healthy than the Netherlands, then we can't assume an equivalent IFR. Maybe it's 0.9%, which would mean only 27,000 infections, or ~7% of the population (instead of 10%).
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:05 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
You act like you know for sure the economy would have been just fine if we would have just “continued like nothing was happening”... an idea that is literally impossible and you know it.
We know FOR A FACT that unemployment wouldn’t have increased by 22 million Americans in just four weeks. Are you being serious right now?
Posted on 4/17/20 at 6:05 am to fightin tigers
quote:
Italy is way healthier than NOLA as well.
Italy is way older, smokes more, and generally lives in much denser communities with multi generational homes.
They also sold their soul to China as the first European country that participated in China’s international infrastructure program.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 6:09 am to TutHillTiger
quote:
Micheal Osterholm was specifically ask about his model and was he still predicting half of the county would get Covid -19 ang 1-2 million deaths. He doubled down and said over the next 18 months
Of people who are already significantly unhealthy for the most part. Let’s open this thing up and make sure each individual practices superb hygiene and those with underlying issues self isolate.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 6:28 am to buckeye_vol
My man. Go bucks
Posted on 4/17/20 at 6:30 am to Oilfieldbiology
Pipe dream. Americans are too stupid and lazy. Things get opened up and this disease will reignite. It’s inevitable
Posted on 4/17/20 at 7:49 am to SabiDojo
quote:
We know FOR A FACT that unemployment wouldn’t have increased by 22 million Americans in just four weeks. Are you being serious right now?
Yea I’m being fricking serious right now
This mythical idea that the economy was just going to keep rolling while a novel virus spread exponentially is probably the dumbest take out there.
People’s behavior was going to change no matter what. You can’t just tell an entire population to ignore an elephant in the room. An elephant we knew nothing about.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 11:33 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
This mythical idea that the economy was just going to keep rolling while a novel virus spread exponentially is probably the dumbest take out there. People’s behavior was going to change no matter what.
Bingo. Businesses and schools shut down for the Spanish Flu and the stock market fell more than 30%. People have distanced themselves for every major pandemic in history. It's simply that we could see this one coming sooner and have tried to be smarter about it. Where to go from here is the difficult part.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 11:49 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Yea I’m being fricking serious right now
This mythical idea that the economy was just going to keep rolling while a novel virus spread exponentially is probably the dumbest take out there.
People’s behavior was going to change no matter what. You can’t just tell an entire population to ignore an elephant in the room. An elephant we knew nothing about.
Unemployment wouldn’t be at 22 million. That’s a fact. No govt assistance, people would still be working. Would the virus have an economic impact? Duh. Would it be worse than us voluntarily killing the economy? Get real
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News